follow up verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
#vendor-verification 2026-05-17
Sunday38 messages10 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- verify_or_dont — i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier 16:30
- mg_per_ml — two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers 16:38
- mg_per_ml — how does a supplier get verification revoked i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier 16:57
- identity_shift — verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted 19:37
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
thin evidence
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
💀11👍8🤝15
thats evidence
quick one is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
both numbers go in
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
👍18🙏2
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
who decides, the mods or the room
pattern not one result
quick one a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
how does a supplier get verification revoked
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
😂13🧊3
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
👀1
not a recommendation
🙏8🧊8
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
🙏6🧪10
refresh on evidence
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
never for sale
sorry to jump in what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
post the photos
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
Verification log updated: SWB — evidence added, status unchanged.
for the archive the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division, n of 1 obviously
log it either way
slightly off topic but is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
🎉12📉7📈1
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
🧊17
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution, for what its worth
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
❤️3🧪1
does a good result from VendorInvestigate outweigh a bad one from PeptideMeter
[edited]unrelated but update from 3 months ago: SGN added evidence and the entry now reflects it